Here's another Pulitzer winner that is worth a read.
Barry Siegel's piece (which is very long) was in the LA Times in 2002, and is about...what is it about? In fact, what is the form?
Is it a discourse on justice and/or suicide? Which issue here has greater prominence?
Is it a profile/s of the judge and/or the father?
The work that went into this feature astounds me.
Even though it's a Pulitzer winner, I humbly suggest it could be improved in a couple of places. The first few pars are a little uneven, or disjointed.
What do you think?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
The story is definitely engaging. Although there's a narrative thread running through it about the father, it seems to be more of a profile of Judge Hilder. I think it is a discourse on responsibility - both Wayment's and Hilder's.
I agree that the first few paragraphs are disjointed, especially the awkward fluctuation of ideas between paras five to seven. I think the second para could also be improved as it's fairly weak, considering the importance of an article's opening scenes.
Siegel's (or his publisher's) sympathy for Wayment is clear. Perhaps he intentionally decided against interpolating comments from some kind of child-welfare source?? I like the inclusion of how the Judge feels now about handing down future verdicts and sentences.
That's my two cents :]
Unfortunately, I felt Siegel's attempt to create suspense at the beginning really threw me off reading. It was awkward; the names of protagonist and other characters were mentioned early on, but you couldn't see them in your head. When they do eventually become identifiable, I become increasingly bored with the story.
Maybe I am tired, and probably disinterested in the subject matter, but it is worrying when a scene about a child dying doesn't move you.
Writing needs to speak, and here, it just doesn't do it for me. Sorry, Pulitzer Prize, you've let me down.
Post a Comment